Wisconsin football report card from 24-10 loss to No. 20 Michigan

Handing out grades for the Wisconsin Badgers offense, defense, and special teams from the 24-10 loss to No. 20 Michigan in Week 6.

Wisconsin running back Dilin Jones (7) runs into the end zone for a touchdown against Michigan on the road in Ann Arbor. Photo credit: UW Athletics.

The Wisconsin football team (2-3, 0-2 Big Ten) came out swinging in Ann Arbor, marching 75 yards on 12 plays to score its first opening-quarter touchdown of the season, and take its first lead over a Power Five opponent since facing Oregon last November. The drive had everything this team’s offense has lacked for weeks: rhythm, balance, and efficiency.

For a moment, it looked like the team that used to line up and dictate the terms. But after that first possession, the story turned painfully familiar.

The offense lost its footing, the defense played well, but got worn down, and by the time Michigan adjusted, Wisconsin couldn’t match it. The result was a 24–10 loss that marked the Badgers’ third straight defeat, their seventh consecutive Big Ten loss dating back to 2024, and dropped Luke Fickell to 0–8 against ranked teams since arriving in Madison.

“We’re not here to sugarcoat anything. There is always some good, but our ability to sustain and finish is where we still are not close to where we need to be,” Fickell said. “The second half kind of showed that. I’d give them a lot of credit for their ability to stick with what they needed to do and wanted to do. In the long run, they probably wore us down a bit, and we weren’t able to sustain and maintain some things in the second half.

“I sure as hell can tell you that it’s going to be a battle. We said in the locker room, there’s only one way for where we want to go, and that’s through it. Through these tough times, through these tough situations. Recognizing what we have to do and how we have to grow is going to take a hell of a lot of effort, a hell of a lot of toughness, and most importantly, a hell of a lot of competitive spirit. Every play will be evaluated tonight: offense, defense, special teams, for the competitive nature of every guy. And we’re going to keep pushing forward with that.”

Those words sound right. But at some point, they have to look right, too. There was effort. There was plenty of fight on Wisconsin’s end. But for all the signs of progress, the way they finished raised questions about belief.

With just under three minutes left in regulation, the game ended the way so many have under Fickell: with a whimper. Wisconsin trailed by two scores, still had all three timeouts, and chose not to use a single one. The decision summed up the fine line between composure and complacency. On one sideline, Michigan appeared intent on finishing what it started. On the other, Wisconsin’s head coach seemed ready to accept the result.

For a team that had spent sixty minutes competing hard against a ranked opponent, it felt like an anticlimactic surrender to the Wolverines, and a moment that reflected quite poorly on Fickell’s own competitive instincts.

You can’t spend a week preaching toughness and competitive spirit, then play out the clock when your players have spent three and a half quarters giving it all for you. With 2:45 remaining, Nathanial Vakos hit a field goal to pull Wisconsin within 14. It wasn’t much, but it was still a window. Three timeouts in the chamber and the two-minute warning left, one last chance to make Michigan work. Instead, the Badgers never stopped the clock.

Michigan ran the ball, bled the rest of the game clock away, and jogged off the field unbothered. It didn’t lose Wisconsin the game, but it symbolized something bigger: a program stuck between what it preaches and what it practices. The messaging doesn’t inspire a lot of belief.

With that as the backdrop, let’s hand out some grades.

Offense: D+

For a brief moment, it looked like the Wisconsin offense had finally turned a corner. The Badgers’ opening drive against Michigan was everything that they’ve been searching for: 12 plays, 75 yards, 6:50 off the clock, and their first touchdown in an opening quarter during the 2025 season.

It was their first lead over a Power Five opponent since last November, and it looked like a statement coming out of the bye. Nine runs, three passes, no negative plays. Balance. Rhythm. Purpose. You could argue that it was one of the most impressive drives of the Fickell era.

Then, like a flickering light, it went out.

From that point forward, Wisconsin managed just 177 total yards the rest of the way, averaging 4.4 yards per play on 57 total snaps. Every possession after the opener felt like a grind uphill. The Badgers finished with 252 total yards, 75 on the ground, 177 through the air, and went just 4-of-14 on third down, punting eight times. It was tough sledding.

Digging deeper, the advanced numbers tell the same story. Across 11 total drives, Wisconsin averaged just 5.18 plays and 22.9 yards per possession. Their EPA per play sat at -0.17, ranking in the 19th percentile nationally. On dropbacks, that figure fell to minus-0.17 (28th percentile), and the rushing efficiency wasn’t any better at minus-0.17 EPA per carry (24th percentile).

Making his first career start at quarterback, Hunter Simmons showed flashes of composure and decent processing, particularly on early drives.

The Southern Illinois transfer completed 18-of-29 passes for 177 yards and an interception. That pick thrown into coverage probably should have drawn a pass interference call, if we’re being honest. Simmons looked more comfortable than freshman Danny O’Neil has, showing poise in the pocket and hitting checkdowns when his first reads weren’t there.

But as the game wore on, Wisconsin’s passing game disappeared. Michigan’s defense crowded the line of scrimmage, daring the Badgers to stretch the field vertically, and they never really made them pay for it.

Fickell acknowledged afterward that the staff decided to start Simmons over O’Neil after an encouraging week of practice during the bye.

“Hunter showed some poise,” Fickell said. “We had had a plan to play both quarterbacks. They both prepared over the bye week. We gave them an opportunity, both guys competed, and both guys had their strong suits. We gave them the opportunity, he [Simmons] had a really good week of practice, and to be honest, we had a lot of questions, too. I had never seen Hunter play, and, you’re in a fifth or sixth week of the season that you have seen him practice, and seen him run with the threes, run with the twos, but this past week he did a really good job, and Danny did, too.

“At some point, we’ve got to take our shots, and obviously, I need to go watch the game. But there was some poise in that kid. That was something we needed him to do, and we will continue to grow with it.”

Wisconsin’s offensive line, featuring its fifth different starting combination in as many games, looked more functional than it has in weeks, even if the results were far from clean. The group of Riley Mahlman, Joe Brunner, Davis Heinzen, Kerry Kodanko, and Emerson Mandell allowed just one sack and three tackles for loss against one of the nation’s best defensive fronts. For much of the afternoon, they gave Hunter Simmons just enough time to execute the game plan, even if the pressure never stopped.

That said, the underlying numbers tell a slightly less flattering story.

Wisconsin didn’t give up a sack until its final drive, but the unit still earned a season-worst 24.2 pass-blocking grade from Pro Football Focus and surrendered 14 total pressures. Mandell was responsible for four, while Heinzen and Kodanko each gave up three. The left side held up markedly better than the right, which continues to be a sore spot with no answers.

Still, compared to the breakdowns that doomed them against Maryland and Alabama, this group at least looked passable. The interior held up early on inside zone and power concepts, helping spring Dilin Jones for 63 yards and a touchdown on 17 carries (3.7 yards per carry). But once Michigan started loading up the box and crowding the line, the cohesion began to evaporate. The Badgers weren’t good up front, but for the first time in a while, they were at least stable enough to run the game plan.

The passing attack struggled to generate any explosive plays. Vinny Anthony was the lone consistent weapon, catching nine of 11 targets for 97 yards. It’s become clear that Anthony is quarterback-proof at this point. Lance Mason chipped in three receptions for 30 yards, and Trech Kekahuna added a 20-yard grab, one of the few chunk gains all day. Beyond that, Wisconsin’s passing attack was limited to short, methodical completions that did little to stress the defense vertically throughout the game.

Fickell pointed to the offensive line’s effort as a positive, but acknowledged the offense’s inability to sustain drives when it mattered.

“Those guys showed us some stuff, and we’ve got to get better,” Fickell said of the offensive line shuffling. “We’ve got to be able to sustain some things, but they battled their asses off. They competed, and they gave us some energy and momentum. We just need to create more.”

Coming out of the bye, there were at least some signs of progress.

Wisconsin tried something new at quarterback, reshuffled the offensive line, and played with a bit more tempo and intent early. I’ll give them credit for that. Simmons looked more composed, and the line, while far from perfect, was at least serviceable enough to execute a plan. But the same issues lingered: uneven pass protection, a lack of explosive plays, and an inability to capitalize when opportunity knocked. The offense still feels like it’s trying to be methodical without the consistency to pull it off.

That’s why this week’s grade lands at a D+. There was some growth, even if this might be as good as Wisconsin’s offense can look right now.

Defense: C

For most of the game, Wisconsin’s defense was the reason they had a puncher’s chance and stayed competitive. The Badgers didn’t fold early, didn’t get blown off the field, and for two and a half quarters, they looked capable of matching Michigan’s physicality. But as has so often been the case under Fickell, effort eventually gave way to exhaustion, and without any game-changing plays, solid once again turned into not enough.

The box score paints the picture clearly: 445 total yards allowed, 175 rushing on 34 attempts (5.1 per carry), and 270 passing with a staggering 14.2 yards per completion. Michigan averaged 7.2 yards per play, an efficiency that reflects not just having more talent, but also control of the game. The Wolverines dictated tempo, especially in the second half, while Wisconsin’s defense was left to absorb the blows and had no counter.

Michigan’s efficiency numbers back up what the eye test already told us.

The Wolverines finished with a 0.12 EPA per play, good for the 68th percentile nationally. Wisconsin’s front seven deserves some credit for keeping the Wolverines’ ground game in check, limiting Michigan to a minus-0.05 EPA per rush (44th percentile). But through the air, the cracks showed. The Badgers allowed a 0.31 EPA per dropback, which ranked in the 78th percentile nationally, a sign that Michigan’s passing attack found success targeting the secondary when and where it mattered most.

The opening drive set an ominous tone after the offense gave them an early 7-0 lead. A defensive pass interference call on Ricardo Hallman, followed by a 42-yard burst from running back Justice Haynes, jump-started a five-play, 75-yard scoring drive capped by a short touchdown run.

From there, though, the Badgers fought back. They forced a field goal, got a missed kick from Michigan’s usually-reliable specialist, and kept the game within striking distance deep into the third quarter.

That’s when fatigue and a lack of turnovers caught up to them. A 29-yard touchdown strike from highly touted freshman quarterback Bryce Underwood to Donaven McCulley late in the third quarter stretched Michigan’s lead to 17–7, and from there, the outcome felt all but inevitable.

Statistically, there were bright spots. Wisconsin notched one sack and three tackles for loss, and Mason Posa forced a fumble that could’ve shifted momentum if it hadn’t bounced the wrong way. Matt Jung led the defense with nine tackles (seven solo), while Christian Alliegro continued his steady play with eight total tackles. Mason Reiger contributed five tackles and a tackle for loss, while transfer corner D’Yoni Hill held up admirably on the back end despite Michigan’s heavy play-action attack.

But the story was familiar: no takeaways, a few too many chunk plays, and not enough stops when it mattered most. Wisconsin’s defense played hard enough to win a different kind of game, just not this one.

When asked about the defense potentially wearing down in the second half, Fickell acknowledged the challenge but didn’t hide behind excuses.

“It still comes down to making plays,” Fickell said. “And you know, in overcoming plays that are made. Whether they throw a ball down the sideline in the first half, great coverage by Matt Jung, and a guy makes a great play. Second half, they throw a ball down the sidelines, great catch, call him out of bounds, review it, he’s in. We aren’t able to recover from some of those things. That’s the wear and tear. But there’s no excuse.

“No matter what, your job as a defense is to outplay the other team’s defense. And that’s a really good defense on the other side of the ball.”

Underwood, Michigan’s freshman phenom, did most of the damage, completing 18-of-27 passes for 264 yards and a touchdown, while McCulley torched Wisconsin for six catches, 112 yards, and a score. The Wolverines didn’t dominate the time of possession. Still, when they needed yards, they got them in chunks, a sign that Wisconsin’s bend-don’t-break philosophy is struggling against higher-level competition.

There’s an argument to be made that Wisconsin’s defense deserved better, maybe even a better grade, because it was the only reason the Badgers hung around as long as they did. The front seven set a tone and played with toughness, even as the offense offered little support. But the lack of takeaways and explosive-play prevention continues to separate solid from special. It also doesn’t help when the defense misses 14 tackles.

When you’re forced to defend 7.2 yards per snap for four quarters, fatigue is inevitable. The effort and preparation are there, but until Wisconsin starts creating momentum-shifting plays instead of just absorbing them, this unit’s ceiling will stay capped at good, not great.

That’s why the defense lands at a C — it was solid, but short of what it takes to win, even if it’s being asked to do more than it reasonably can.

Special Teams: B+

For once, this phase didn’t cost Wisconsin the game. In fact, it quietly stabilized things. After a string of breakdowns and blocked kicks in recent weeks, the Badgers’ special teams unit looked composed, consistent, and dependable against Michigan. Complimentary football was finally played.

Atticus Bertrams turned in one of his best performances of the season, punting seven times for 317 yards — an average of 45.3 per kick — with a long of 52. Three of those punts were pinned inside the 20-yard line, including one perfectly executed sequence where Jayden Ballard caught the ball near the goal line and flipped it back to long snapper Nick Levy, who downed it at the 1-yard line. Two traveled 50+ yards, and none left Michigan with favorable field position. In a game where Wisconsin’s offense sputtered and field position mattered, Bertrams was rock solid.

Statistically, the group was slightly below neutral overall, finishing with a special team’s EPA of minus 0.16. Hardly a difference-maker, but far from the liability it had been. Nathanial Vakos connected on a 39-yard field goal late in the fourth quarter to trim the deficit, and while it didn’t change the outcome, it capped off a clean performance from him.

Vinny Anthony added a 21-yard kickoff return, while Tyrell Henry picked up five yards on a punt return, which were small, steady contributions that kept things moving. More importantly, the special teams avoided the kind of costly miscues that have plagued Wisconsin in past weeks.

It wasn’t a highlight reel performance, but it was reliable, and reliability was exactly what Wisconsin needed. After the chaos that’s defined this unit lately, Saturday marked a quiet and needed step in the right direction.

That kind of stability earns them a B+ for the week.

Next up: Iowa

The road ahead doesn’t get any easier. Wisconsin returns home next weekend to host a Hawkeyes team built to win the same kind of game the Badgers keep losing: slow, physical, low-possession, and punishing. The margins will be thin again, but the challenge is a big one, nonetheless.

The Badgers showed fight in Ann Arbor. They played hard, stayed together, and looked more disciplined. But effort alone doesn’t equal progress, and moral victories don’t move the needle anymore.

“I promise you this,” Fickell said postgame. “The competitive spirit and competitive nature — we’re gonna find out who the ones are that don’t look at the scoreboard, don’t look at the record, don’t worry about who the next opponent is, but are willing to fight their way through this thing and find ways for us to continue to grow, create, gain more consistency, get better at what we do, and come out a hell of a lot stronger.”

The problem is that Wisconsin still looks like a team playing not to lose. You could see it again in Ann Arbor, the Badgers ran the ball into stacked boxes, avoided taking deep shots, and bled clock like they were protecting a lead that didn’t exist. When they trailed 17–7, the game felt out of reach, not because of talent, but because of their approach.

That’s the truth of this team right now. The defense gives them a chance, the offense limits their ceiling week to week, and the coaching staff is still trying to find the balance between accountability and development.

Here’s the bottom line: this locker room hasn’t quit on Fickell, but after the way those final minutes unfolded in Ann Arbor, it’s fair for any player to wonder whether their head coach quit on them. The October gauntlet that starts with Iowa, then No. 1 Ohio State at home and a road trip to No. 2 Oregon, will test every ounce of that competitive spirit that Fickell keeps preaching about. We’re well beyond moral victories; the fight is there, but finishing still isn’t. Wisconsin gets its next shot for redemption at Camp Randall Stadium next Saturday against Kirk Ferentz and the Hawkeyes.

---

We appreciate you taking the time to read our work at BadgerNotes.com. Your support means the world to us and has helped us become a leading independent source for Wisconsin Badgers coverage.

You can also follow Site Publisher Dillon Graff at @DillonGraff on X.